PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on March 02, 2017, 06:55:28 AM
-
Stories seem to indicate that AG Sessions may have lied under oath about meetings with the Russians. If he did, I would say Trump should ask for his resignation.
I realize that the left is going to go after everyone they can, but lying is not acceptable to me.
-
Right now, I would say this is yet another fabrication of the left. They took down Flynn, now they want to take down Sessions.
This is going to continue with everyone in his cabinet, and include the VP and the President.
They (dems) got a taste of blood in the water and now are on a feeding frenzy. The democrat party is in such terrible shape now that all they have to fight back is this garbage. They still can't accept they have lost as big as they did.
-
Obama and his cronies have left his loyalist all over government and now we are seeing the results.
The Trump administration needs to do a huge swamp drain of the executive branch as well as the intel communities. The master plan of the outgoing Obama cartel was to create nothing but havoc for Trump and obstruct his every move.
-
I agree that if Sessions lied under oath, he needs to be fired. Just saying "But the Democrats did it too" isn't sufficient justification. I got sick of hearing that excuse (in reverse) for 8 years under Obama.
Wouldn't it be cool if our media was as obsessed with finding dirt on Ds as well as Rs? (But had the sense to filter out "dirt" that would effect national security; some lies in government are necessary).
-
Stories seem to indicate that AG Sessions may have lied under oath about meetings with the Russians. If he did, I would say Trump should ask for his resignation.
I realize that the left is going to go after everyone they can, but lying is not acceptable to me.
I concur that lying under oath should be disqualifying.
I admit that my priority would be to first dump bill clinton for lying under oath, then hillary, then all the obama cronies for lying under oath, and ....
-
Chuckle Schumer is now demanding Sessions resign. Right on cue. Hey, the senate just confirmed Ben Carson, so in a week or so look for a "controversy" on him and Schumer demand his resignation.
So where was the demands for Loretta Lynch to resign when she broke the law meeting with Bill Clinton?
-
If it wasn't for ESTABLISHMENT "Republicans" (traitors) like McCain, and Lindsay Graham, the real Republicans, and Trump could just ignore these idiots. It only gets traction because the mainstream media keeps pounding the anti Trump drum so people believe their lies.
-
I guess I need to look for the exact language Sessions used in his testimony. He was a sitting Senator and might be expected to actually have had meetings with representatives of many countries.
-
So where was the demands for Loretta Lynch to resign when she broke the law meeting with Bill Clinton?
This was my thought as well. Or Eric Holder and the Fast and Furious scandal, or [insert your choice here].
-
I guess I need to look for the exact language Sessions used in his testimony. He was a sitting Senator and might be expected to actually have had meetings with representatives of many countries.
He was and he did. I don't know the details of the conversations but he was on the Armed Services Committee so he met with lots of ambassadors.
Nobody cared about this when it was candidate Trump or President-Elect Trump and now all of a sudden they care. Representative Keith Ellison has already said that there's enough to impeach Trump yet I don't see him making moves to introduce articles of impeachment against him.
-
This is all part of the Obama/Jarrett shadow government acting to subvert the legal actions of the U.S. government, and President. They can't get over that they lost, so they have to try to bring down Trump in other, unethical, and illegal ways.
-
No he did not, another fake news story - next. Attempt to conflate his legitimate meeting with Russian representative during his duties as Senator and Member House Armed Forces Committee (totally legit) with the insinuation he did so as a campaign representative (he was not).
Another attempt to disrupt and delegitimize the Trump Train.
Corrections will be printed below the fold on Page 68 2 weeks from now.
'Gimp
-
Gosh, gee, I don't know. What is lying anyway? Isn't lying just when you didn't understand my answer to a question that I didn't understand you asking?
It all depends on what your definition of "is" is...
-
Representative Keith Ellison has already said that there's enough to impeach Trump yet I don't see him making moves to introduce articles of impeachment against him.
LOLOLO ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
::) ::) :o :o :o :o
-
It's time to put a stop to this nonsense. The milquetoast republicans refuse to stand up to the democrats and are letting them and their propaganda arm (MSM) continue this bullshit.
I say it's time for AG Sessions to appoint a special prosecutor on Hillary Clinton. Let's get that going and finally bring her up on charges.
Fight fire with fire.
-
RUSH: It appears, ladies and gentlemen, that the people on our side still haven’t learned a single lesson about how to deal with the Democrat Party and the media, the American left — of course, that’s all the same group of people. It’s patently obvious. It’s really frustrating to me. All of this should have been anticipated. All of this was easily predictable. I think somebody I know pretty well did.
And the way this is all being handled today — and people have the best intentions. The heartfelt desire to defend Jeff Sessions by pointing out the Democrat hypocrisy, when are we gonna learn that Democrat hypocrisy doesn’t exist? There is no such thing as Democrat hypocrisy in the media. You’re never gonna beat these people back by pointing out how they’ve done the same thing that they’re accusing us of doing. It’s never gonna work!
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/03/02/barack-obama-and-his-deep-state-operatives-are-attempting-to-sabotage-the-duly-elected-president-of-the-united-states/
-
Republicans just need to tell Schumer to get stuffed and move on. Sessions did nothing illegal and he certainly should not resign to appease them.
-
About 3:30 into this video is the beginning of the question from Franken that Sessions answers that this affair seems to be about. Given the context and the requirements for perjury, it seems a weak case. And I write that as someone who thinks Sessions is a danger to liberty.
-
And I write that as someone who thinks Sessions is a danger to liberty.
and what do you base your belief on?
did you also think that holder and obama were a danger to liberty?
-
and what do you base your belief on?
did you also think that holder and obama were a danger to liberty?
How about Loretta Lynch, Valerie Jarrett, Rahm Immanuel, Van Jones, etc. Weren't they also a threat to liberty? What has Sessions done to threaten liberty? Uphold the Constitution?
-
How about Loretta Lynch, Valerie Jarrett, Rahm Immanuel, Van Jones, etc. Weren't they also a threat to liberty? What has Sessions done to threaten liberty? Uphold the Constitution?
The media didn't criticize those guys, so they must be good people; right? ("The media" means NOT FOX).
-
You know, you guys could simply ask him why he feels that way about Sessions, without the "you fuckin' liberal" undertones.
-
Having studied this through the day yesterday, it does appear that he answered the question asked of him correctly. He did not meet with the Russian Ambassador as a surrogate for the Trump campaign. In the end, a nothing burger.
It will go away over the next few days and the Democrats will select the next target.
It seems to be me that if the Democrats put as much time and effort into legislating with the Republicans as they are in picking targets to go after, we could get some good things done.
-
It seems to be me that if the Democrats put as much time and effort into legislating with the Republicans as they are in picking targets to go after, we could get some good things done.
But if they did that, it would make Trump look good. That would keep them out of power even longer, and retaining (or reclaiming) their power is much more important to them than the "General Welfare" of the U.S.
-
The republicans need to grow a set of balls and reinforce the Administration. If and when the republicans stand up against the alt left this crap will slow down.
And I'll make a prediction. This will be Paul Ryan's last term as speaker. It was a huge mistake to give him this term and he is once again showing his true colors.
The senate needs to remove McConnell from his role, but that is less likely to happen since the senate is made up of even bigger pussies on the R side.
We are at an important time in history, a truly remarkable time, and the establishment republicans are well on their way to fucking it up.
-
The republicans need to grow a set of balls and reinforce the Administration. If and when the republicans stand up against the alt left this crap will slow down.
And I'll make a prediction. This will be Paul Ryan's last term as speaker. It was a huge mistake to give him this term and he is once again showing his true colors.
The senate needs to remove McConnell from his role, but that is less likely to happen since the senate is made up of even bigger pussies on the R side.
We are at an important time in history, a truly remarkable time, and the establishment republicans are well on their way to fucking it up.
It seems in an effort to keep their place at the trough, the establishment Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot with the American people. They have an opportunity for real progress, and change yet just want to be short sighted, and retain their own greed. I am ashamed to be a Republican at this point, and will change to Independent if things do not improve.
-
and what do you base your belief on?
did you also think that holder and obama were a danger to liberty?
Bullseye.
When we approach topics with prejudices about what the outcome is then we ignore data that disproves our prejudice and embrace anything that confirms our bias. Hence we arrives at a place where agreement is impossible because we do not share the same facts.
If you want to improve washington...and yourself...seek to have an open mind. Work hard to monitor yourself for prejudice. When you do not I assure you that everyone else can see it in you.
It requires buidling a firm moral structure and letting facts dictate your belief, not the other way around. I hope I am better at this than others because I recognize it. But I am not perfect.
-
Bullseye.
When we approach topics with prejudices about what the outcome is then we ignore data that disproves our prejudice and embrace anything that confirms our bias. Hence we arrives at a place where agreement is impossible because we do not share the same facts.
If you want to improve washington...and yourself...seek to have an open mind. Work hard to monitor yourself for prejudice. When you do not I assure you that everyone else can see it in you.
It requires buidling a firm moral structure and letting facts dictate your belief, not the other way around. I hope I am better at this than others because I recognize it. But I am not perfect.
Well that was a giant leap based on nothing.
-
You know, you guys could simply ask him why he feels that way about Sessions, without the "you fuckin' liberal" undertones.
Fuck you too
-
And I write that as someone who thinks Sessions is a danger to liberty.
At some point you liberal whack jobs need to deviate from yuor script and try looking at the world thru clear eyes and non-partisan bent. I know that is impossible, which is why I don't bother to give you a long articulate answer.
The truth is when you lead with bullshit like "I think Sessions is a danger to liberty, you are simply repeating bullshit becuase you were told to.
-
Well that was a giant leap based on nothing.
We know that people will reject data that contradicts what they already believe and accept data which confirms what they believe. You agree with this I'm sure because it's well recognized science. But inherent in this statement is that people have already formed opinions before the facts arrive. Next they accept the facts they like and reject the facts they don't like. That's how we arrive at a place where agreement is not possible because we don't share the same reality.
Not nothing. You don't already believe it, so it is natural that you would reject it because it would have serious repercussions to what you "know". That's your prerogative, but if everyone else understands it and recognizes that you're not capable of overcoming your prejudices when confronted by fact then I trust that will be taken into account via credibility on your future statements.
The fault for not "understanding" is yours.
-
You know, you guys could simply ask him why he feels that way about Sessions, without the "you fuckin' liberal" undertones.
Why should he have pussy-footed around the obvious? Should he be afraid of hurting Jim's feelings? Other than being brainwashed by the liberal media, why would anyone think Sessions is a bigger danger to our freedom than those others? When Jim repeatedly throws those spears at Trump and his administration, he is also setting himself up as a target of similar linguistic spears.
-
Eric Holder has blood on his hands with Fast and Furious. He lied to congress, was found in contempt and never prosecuted.
Loretta Lynch conferred with Bill Clinton on a private jet on a tarmac while Hillary was under investigation. She was never asked to resign nor did she recuse herself from the investigation, then recommended no charges be filed.
Jeff Sessions met with a Russian Ambassador as part of his duties as a US Senator once and a quick greeting on another occasion. AG Sessions answered the conformation hearings questions openly and honestly. He even recused himself (prematurely) from any involvement with potential investigations into the Trump campaign.
And who is the "danger to liberty"?
-
Fuck you too
So crotchety!
-
We know that people will reject data that contradicts what they already believe and accept data which confirms what they believe. You agree with this I'm sure because it's well recognized science. But inherent in this statement is that people have already formed opinions before the facts arrive. Next they accept the facts they like and reject the facts they don't like. That's how we arrive at a place where agreement is not possible because we don't share the same reality.
Not nothing. You don't already believe it, so it is natural that you would reject it because it would have serious repercussions to what you "know". That's your prerogative, but if everyone else understands it and recognizes that you're not capable of overcoming your prejudices when confronted by fact then I trust that will be taken into account via credibility on your future statements.
The fault for not "understanding" is yours.
Thanks, Dr. Phil.
Now, let us rewind. Jim gave his opinion that Sessions did not commit perjury, while admitting he believes Sessions is a "threat to liberty". Instead of, oh, I don't know, asking him why he has that opinion and allowing him to answer, look at the giant leap all of you have taken. Now all of a sudden he's a dirty liberal (he's not), a hypocrite because he feels this way about Sessions but not Holder et al (you didn't give him the courtesy of answering), and a prejudiced individual with a closed mind (lol wat?).
And apparently you're also my psychologist. Unfortunately, I have no idea what you're on about.
-
Why should he have pussy-footed around the obvious? Should he be afraid of hurting Jim's feelings? Other than being brainwashed by the liberal media, why would anyone think Sessions is a bigger danger to our freedom than those others? When Jim repeatedly throws those spears at Trump and his administration, he is also setting himself up as a target of similar linguistic spears.
The only "obvious" thing here is that everyone who is not you guys is "a liberal". So, naturally, if you don't like what someone says, and, indeed, don't even wait for your debate opponent to provide answers to your questions, well then they must be liberal, hypocritical, Obama-admin-loving know-nothings! Right?
So to answer your question about why he should avoid "pussy-footing" around that; common debate courtesy, for one.
-
At some point you liberal whack jobs need to deviate from yuor script and try looking at the world thru clear eyes and non-partisan bent. I know that is impossible, which is why I don't bother to give you a long articulate answer.
The truth is when you lead with bullshit like "I think Sessions is a danger to liberty, you are simply repeating bullshit becuase you were told to.
;D
-
... Instead of, oh, I don't know, asking him why he has that opinion and allowing him to answer, look at the giant leap all of you have taken. ...
I did ask. So, why label everyone with "all of you..."?
-
So to answer your question about why he should avoid "pussy-footing" around that; common debate courtesy, for one.
"Common" courtesy? Isn't that an oxymoron on the internet?
But regardless of how the question was asked, I am still waiting to hear why people that had no problem with any of the previous administration can think that Sessions is such a great threat to our liberty?
-
I did ask. So, why label everyone with "all of you..."?
-
"Common" courtesy? Isn't that an oxymoron on the internet?
But regardless of how the question was asked, I am still waiting to hear why people that had no problem with any of the previous administration can think that Sessions is such a great threat to our liberty?
Tell me again how you know that Jim had "no problem with any of the previous administration"?
-
I did ask. So, why label everyone with "all of you..."?
Fair point.
-
Now, let us rewind. Jim gave his opinion that Sessions did not commit perjury, while admitting he believes Sessions is a "threat to liberty". Instead of, oh, I don't know, asking him why he has that opinion and allowing him to answer, look at the giant leap all of you have taken. Now all of a sudden he's a dirty liberal (he's not), a hypocrite because he feels this way about Sessions but not Holder et al (you didn't give him the courtesy of answering), and a prejudiced individual with a closed mind (lol wat?).
I have no problem with other view points as long as folks are intellectually honest, and hopefully give examples of why they think what they do. I am also curious as to why Jim thinks Sessions is a threat to liberty, and will give him the benefit of the doubt until he has had a chance to respond to that. I know what 95% of the media, and Democrats think of Sessions, but would like to hear Jim's take.
And apparently you're also my psychologist. Unfortunately, I have no idea what you're on about.
Well, you don't have to worry about me psychoanalyzing you. I would feel a Stark Trek like, Vulcan mind meld or "brain drain" would occur, like with Spock and the "Horta". :) :) :)
Hope things at work have gotten better.
-
Thanks Anthony. My company was acquired. I'm in management. Staffing level is decimated. It's going to be a while.
-
Tell me again how you know that Jim had "no problem with any of the previous administration"?
I only KNOW what people here post. Jim predictably slings accusations at the Trump admin, but he was either quiet or defensive about Hillary and Obama, even while he claimed to not like them.
I don't have any idea what he really thinks. Perhaps he just bends over backwards in an attempt to be fairnn
-
I only KNOW what people here post. Jim predictably slings accusations at the Trump admin, but he was either quiet or defensive about Hillary and Obama, even while he claimed to not like them.
I don't have any idea what he really thinks. Perhaps he just bends over backwards in an attempt to be fairnn
Granted, I've been here less lately, but as I recall, Jim only recently joined the conversations here at PilotSpin. I know him to be a Libertarian who voted for Gary Johnson, and while certainly not an ultra-conservative Trump voter, he doesn't come across as a snowflake liberal to me.
-
Thanks Anthony. My company was acquired. I'm in management. Staffing level is decimated. It's going to be a while.
Oh man, hang in there. What does it look like in the future for you?
-
I wrote "And I write that as someone who thinks Sessions is a danger to liberty."
and what do you base your belief on?
I think Sessions is a danger to civil liberties because of his recent statements on crackdowns on recreational use of marijuana and his defense of current civil forfeiture practices (see http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443299/civil-forfeiture-property-seizure-no-judicial-process-jeff-sesions-justice-department (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443299/civil-forfeiture-property-seizure-no-judicial-process-jeff-sesions-justice-department))
Lastly, the following votes on civil liberty issues are contrary to my conception of liberty (though there are many votes he cast that I do agree with):
Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. (Dec 2007)
Voted NO on killing restrictions on violent videos to minors. (May 1999)
Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
Voted YES on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Jeff_Sessions.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Jeff_Sessions.htm)
did you also think that holder and obama were a danger to liberty?
The eight years of the Obama administration was a disaster for liberty. I didn't vote for him - nor any other Democrat for any other local or national office anytime in the last 40 years.
This forum appears to be dominated by conservatives, followed by libertarians, populists, and lastly liberals - so it is in danger of becoming a conservative echo chamber. As a result, IMHO attempting to debate posts made by the few liberals is an exercise in redundancy, which only leaves debating posts made by the conservative majority. If posters make posts I suspect are erroneous and I suspect they will go unchallenged I may decide to challenge them, depending on how much effort is involved vs how much time I'm willing to expend. I consider myself a libertarian and there are plenty of differences by libertarians and conservatives.
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/nancy-pelosi-sergey-kislyak-meeting-235653
-
I wrote "And I write that as someone who thinks Sessions is a danger to liberty."
I think Sessions is a danger to civil liberties because of his recent statements on crackdowns on recreational use of marijuana and his defense of current civil forfeiture practices (see http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443299/civil-forfeiture-property-seizure-no-judicial-process-jeff-sesions-justice-department (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443299/civil-forfeiture-property-seizure-no-judicial-process-jeff-sesions-justice-department))
Lastly, the following votes on civil liberty issues are contrary to my conception of liberty (though there are many votes he cast that I do agree with):
Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. (Dec 2007)
Voted NO on killing restrictions on violent videos to minors. (May 1999)
Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
Voted YES on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Jeff_Sessions.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Jeff_Sessions.htm)
The eight years of the Obama administration was a disaster for liberty. I didn't vote for him - nor any other Democrat for any other local or national office anytime in the last 40 years.
This forum appears to be dominated by conservatives, followed by libertarians, populists, and lastly liberals - so it is in danger of becoming a conservative echo chamber. As a result, IMHO attempting to debate posts made by the few liberals is an exercise in redundancy, which only leaves debating posts made by the conservative majority. If posters make posts I suspect are erroneous and I suspect they will go unchallenged I may decide to challenge them, depending on how much effort is involved vs how much time I'm willing to expend. I consider myself a libertarian and there are plenty of differences by libertarians and conservatives.
Precisely why I visit this site more infrequently as time goes on. Everyone not on the "Trump Train" is a goddam liberal and it's getting close to a right-wing circle jerk. Echo chambers are never good as a litmus test for ones own beliefs.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
I wrote "And I write that as someone who thinks Sessions is a danger to liberty."
I think Sessions is a danger to civil liberties because of his recent statements on crackdowns on recreational use of marijuana and his defense of current civil forfeiture practices (see http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443299/civil-forfeiture-property-seizure-no-judicial-process-jeff-sesions-justice-department (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443299/civil-forfeiture-property-seizure-no-judicial-process-jeff-sesions-justice-department))
Lastly, the following votes on civil liberty issues are contrary to my conception of liberty (though there are many votes he cast that I do agree with):
Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. (Dec 2007)
Voted NO on killing restrictions on violent videos to minors. (May 1999)
Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (Jun 2009)
Voted YES on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's roving wiretaps. (Feb 2011)
Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008)
Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
Source: http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Jeff_Sessions.htm (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Jeff_Sessions.htm)
The eight years of the Obama administration was a disaster for liberty. I didn't vote for him - nor any other Democrat for any other local or national office anytime in the last 40 years.
This forum appears to be dominated by conservatives, followed by libertarians, populists, and lastly liberals - so it is in danger of becoming a conservative echo chamber. As a result, IMHO attempting to debate posts made by the few liberals is an exercise in redundancy, which only leaves debating posts made by the conservative majority. If posters make posts I suspect are erroneous and I suspect they will go unchallenged I may decide to challenge them, depending on how much effort is involved vs how much time I'm willing to expend. I consider myself a libertarian and there are plenty of differences by libertarians and conservatives.
Ok, I"m good with that explanation. I agree with much of your reasoning, but it also validates me in that you "seem' to criticize conservatives more than you criticize liberals because you are trying to balance the discussion. But from the looks of your past posts, it "seemed" that you seemed to be more critical of conservatives than you were of liberals. As I told Asechrest, I can only go on what you post; not on what you really think.
-
Precisely why I visit this site more infrequently as time goes on. Everyone not on the "Trump Train" is a goddam liberal and it's getting close to a right-wing circle jerk. Echo chambers are never good as a litmus test for ones own beliefs.
I agree with Jim Longajan's perspective on Sessions history of voting, but I don't see him as much of a threat as the people posed under the last eight years of Obama like Holder, Lynch, Jarrett, Imanuel, Jones, , and EPA heads, etc. I don't like the Patriot Act, but that was totally BI-Partisan, nor further restrictions on thing like tobacco, nor marijuana, and I don't smoke either of them. Is Sessions perfect? NO, but he is better than Holder, or Lynch.
This forum is becoming a conservative circle jerk, because some of our more liberal/progressive members can not back up their beliefs with facts, nor logic, and fail in making cogent arguments for their views, and get emotional, upset, and leave. Too bad, so sad.
-
"Common" courtesy? Isn't that an oxymoron on the internet?
But regardless of how the question was asked, I am still waiting to hear why people that had no problem with any of the previous administration can think that Sessions is such a great threat to our liberty?
Because they've been told to.
It really is that simple.
-
Ok, I"m good with that explanation. I agree with much of your reasoning, but it also validates me in that you "seem' to criticize conservatives more than you criticize liberals because you are trying to balance the discussion. But from the looks of your past posts, it "seemed" that you seemed to be more critical of conservatives than you were of liberals. As I told Asechrest, I can only go on what you post; not on what you really think.
Actually you can go on what he really thinks. But you may have to ask and wait for the answer.
-
Actually you can go on what he really thinks. But you may have to ask and wait for the answer.
I can also assume that what he writes is what he really thinks. Unless you are calling him a liar.
And I did ask him what he really thought, but you gave me shit about it.
-
I can also assume that what he writes is what he really thinks. Unless you are calling him a liar.
And I did ask him what he really thought, but you gave me shit about it.
No, sorry. You piled on with at least two posts, including one suggesting he was a liberal brainwashed by the media, before deciding to ask him to further explain.
I've reviewed Jim's posts. Have you? I don't know where you get your opinion of him, (he says a bunch of times that he's a libertarian) but stop plugging gaps in your own knowledge with WAGs. It just contributes to the echo chamber effect.
I swear, if we had a new poster come in here and say he disliked elephants, you guys would call him a dirty Liberal and ask him why he didn't feel the same way about Obama.
-
I swear, if we had a new poster come in here and say he disliked elephants, you guys would call him a dirty Liberal and ask him why he didn't feel the same way about Obama.
Only a dirty liberal scumbag would dislike an elephant.................
-
you guys
I object.
-
I object.
As a progressive, late to the party baby boomer, that is white, and "middle class" (whatever that means), I think that is RACIST! I guess I just hate myself. I am so riddled with guilt over my privilege!!!!!!!!!
:)
-
Only a dirty liberal scumbag would dislike an elephant.................
I have no problems with elephants, as long as they stay out of the living room.
(Oh oh, now I'll be accused of proboscideaism.)
-
I don't believe an apology is in order, but I would like to call a truce with Jim. And yes, I realize that I was the guiltier one.
Now that I understand where he is coming from, I have no problem with his posts. Especially because they are usually well reasoned and backed up. My problem with his posts was that they were invariably antagonistic towards conservatives. But I can see why he would think that is called for, since we have so few liberals on here.
-
I don't believe an apology is in order, but I would like to call a truce with Jim. And yes, I realize that I was the guiltier one.
Now that I understand where he is coming from, I have no problem with his posts. Especially because they are usually well reasoned and backed up. My problem with his posts was that they were invariably antagonistic towards conservatives. But I can see why he would think that is called for, since we have so few liberals on here.
Truce? I missed the declaration of war, dangit. No apology needed from you or anyone. Fortunately for me, I don't hold anything people say to (or about) me against them. It's fortunate for me because it means I remain in a blissful state, rather than get worked up.
I used to consider myself conservative - back in the early 1970s. I was pro-Nixon. I read William F. Buckley's National Review (well, mostly because an older brother subscribed.) But at some point, not sure when, I found myself in the evil clutches of libertarianism. Guess I never could accept the idea of a government small enough to fit in everyone's bedroom. I thought it should be even smaller than that.
-
Truce? I missed the declaration of war, dangit.
I agree, but apparently "someone" thought I was too hard on you.
No apology needed from you or anyone.
That is to your credit. But thanks.
Fortunately for me, I don't hold anything people say to (or about) me against them. It's fortunate for me because it means I remain in a blissful state, rather than get worked up.
I used to consider myself conservative - back in the early 1970s. I was pro-Nixon. I read William F. Buckley's National Review (well, mostly because an older brother subscribed.) But at some point, not sure when, I found myself in the evil clutches of libertarianism. Guess I never could accept the idea of a government small enough to fit in everyone's bedroom. I thought it should be even smaller than that.
I would be a libertarian, but unfortunately, I think there are too many evil people that mandate that we have too many rules. While I fully believe that the Federal government has gone way overboard with their regulating, I also understand that many of the rules and regulations we all suffer under are due to people that abused their rights and privileges.
But that doesn't warrant the government intruding into our daily lives and telling us how we can enjoy life, or who we can enjoy it with.
-
I admit to overzealous defense of Jim without asking whether he wanted it. It's because I enjoy hearing different viewpoints around here, and don't wish it to become a forum of parrots.
-
I admit to overzealous defense of Jim without asking whether he wanted it. It's because I enjoy hearing different viewpoints around here, and don't wish it to become a forum of parrots.
I don't want to speak for others, but I do appreciate other viewpoints. I think many of us, including myself are disgusted by the current display of sour grapes from the Democrats, and Media. It is getting old, and starting to look like a purposeful COUP. There was none of this when Obama won two terms, and became the most liberal/progressive President in modern history, and then proceeded to go on a "bash America" tour of appeasement around the world. For me, his eight year reign was demoralizing, and counterproductive to the advancement of our quality of life, security, and standard of living here in the United States.
Trump has vowed to represent Americans, and work on behalf of Americans. I thought that didn't even need to be said, but after Obama it does. He has flaws, as does every President, but I think his goals are positive, and genuine.